Punitive Damages
Hale vs. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company
Year: 2002
Court: California Court of Appeal
Case Number: A092548, A092833
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • California

UP filed a request for publication of a decision supporting the insured’s claim for punitive damages and the application of Kransco (no comparative bad faith) to first party cases.
Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company vs. Rodgers, Tina
Year: 2002
Court: Kentucky Supreme Court
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • Kentucky

Punitive damages; public service nature of insurance
Johnson, Greg et al. vs. Ford Motor Company
Year: 2004
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S121723
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • California

The permissible ratio of punitive to compensatory damages after Campbell should not be limited to a bright line ratio.
Philip Morris USA vs. Mayola Williams
Year: 2005
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Number: 05-1256
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • United States

Review of Court’s previous decisions regarding punitive damages. The Court should not be setting substantive due process standards for punitive damage cases. Lower Courts have interpreted the Court’s opinion in Campbell V. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., as requiring a single digit ratio for…
Simon, Lionel vs. Sao Paulo U.S. Holding Company, Inc.
Year: 2003
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S121933
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • California

A careful reading of Campbell shows that the Supreme Court did not lay down a single digit ratio for punitive damages and the decision was not intended to deprive states of the ability to exercise their legitimate state interests in deterring and punishing unlawful conduct…
Strawn, Mark vs. Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon, Mid-Century Insurance Company and Truck Insurance Exchange
Year: 2008
Court: Supreme Court of Oregon
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • Oregon

In order to assure that a punitive damages award fulfills the purpose of deterrence and retribution, due process considerations for assessing the constitutional validity of a punitive damages award must include consideration of the defendant’s wealth.
State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company vs. Campbell, Curtis B., et al.
Year: 2002
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Number: 01-1289
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • United States

UP argued that an award of punitive damages should be linked to reprehensibility of conduct. The Court should not establish a bright line ratio. UP reminded the Court that punitive damages serve the purpose of deterrence from corporate misconduct and should be large enough, depending…
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company vs. Simmons, James and Cynthia
Year: 1996
Court: Texas Supreme Court
Case Number: D-4095
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • Texas

UP brief supports Court of Appeals decision holding that (1) insurance company acted in bad faith; (2) the insurance company failed to show the policyholders burned their own home and (3) punitive damage award of two million was not excessive.
Willow Inn, Inc. vs. Public Service Mutual Insurance Company
Year: 2003
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Case Number: 03-2837
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • Pennsylvania

A punitive damage award that exceeds the Campbell ratio of 9:1 does not violate substantive due process.
Thomas Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Company
Year: 2012
Court: Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Three
Case Number: BC405280
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • California

United Policyholders brief opposed common laws limiting the amount of punitive damages a policyholder can recover to the amount of their standard damages multiplied by a number less than ten. Instead, UP argued that the trier of fact is in the best position to determine…
Kenneth John Nardelli and Tammy M. Nardelli, v. Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Year: 2011
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Case Number: CV-12-0180-PR
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • Arizona

Should a jury verdict and Court of Appeals finding of clear and convincing evidence to support a punitive damages award result in a reduction of the award simply because it was in excess of a single digit ratio to compensatory damages?
Thomas Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co.
Year: 2014
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S213873
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • California

Punitive damages awards are subject to heightened Due Process scrutiny after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in State Farm v. Campbell. While the Campbell ruling did not establish a bright-line rule, many state and federal courts, including California, have announced that no more than a…
Tamarin Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Ins. Co.
Year: 2016
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Case Number: M2015-02349-SC-R23-CV
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • Tennessee

In many jurisdictions when an insurance company breaches an insurance contract, it not only is required to pay what it owed originally and wrongfully delayed or denied, it also must pay attorneys fees and punitive damages. The rationale is that if an insurance company only…
Scot and Joanna Sobieski v. American Family Ins. Co. et al
Year: 2017
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Case Number: CV-16-0253-PR
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • Arizona

In a brief supporting a petition for review, UP argued that when a reviewing court disregards a jury’s finding that punitive damages were warranted in an insurance bad faith case, it is harmful to consumers. When an insurance company acts in bad faith, the discretion…